Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 8:48 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, Faith, Tanypteryx (5 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,666 Year: 6,703/19,786 Month: 1,244/1,581 Week: 66/393 Day: 49/17 Hour: 3/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Gene pool deeper?
Inactive Member

Message 10 of 47 (106673)
05-08-2004 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Gup20
05-08-2004 6:20 PM

Darwinistic evolution goes from molecules to man

Evolution is a bush, not a ladder. It doesn't go from "molecules to man." It goes from "one living thing" to "many, many different living things."

Evolution goes out, not up. Humans aren't at the apex of anything except the food chain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Gup20, posted 05-08-2004 6:20 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 05-08-2004 7:39 PM crashfrog has responded

Inactive Member

Message 12 of 47 (106676)
05-08-2004 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
05-08-2004 7:39 PM

Lot's of gnats and skeeters round here might dispute even that.

We call 'em the state bird around these parts, and they grow mighty big.

But I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the direction toxins bioaccumulate, for instance. We're definately apex predators there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 05-08-2004 7:39 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 05-08-2004 7:45 PM crashfrog has responded

Inactive Member

Message 14 of 47 (106680)
05-08-2004 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
05-08-2004 7:45 PM

right up there with clams, oysters and other shellfish.

Which we eat, which accumulates the toxins that these organisms ingest.

Which species is accumulating the toxins that we ingest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 05-08-2004 7:45 PM jar has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 21 of 47 (106742)
05-09-2004 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Gup20
05-09-2004 4:41 AM

There is no such thing as skin color.

I was looking this up, and you may wish to know that there's three pigments associated with coloration of skin: hemoglobin, carotene, and melanin.

Obviously hemoglobin, the red pigment of blood, is responsible for the pinkish color of light skin. Carotene is the dominant pigment only in pathological situations, and is yellow-orange in color.

Melanin is actually two different pigments; pheomelanin (yellow-red in color) and eumelanin (the more familiar brown-black color). The ratios of these pigments would explain how persons from different regions differ in hue and not just tint.

So I'm not sure your statement is accurate. It's like saying that paint has no color - it only has different amounts of different pigments. Technically true, but not what most people would mean by "having color."

Anyway, just thought I would chime in with that.

Oh, and the rest of it - your argument, over and over, just seems to be that if a sequence is changed, the fact that it's different than it was before represents a loss of "specified complexity", whatever that is.

That's not an argument that I find compelling. I challenge you to identify a hypothetical change - in any situation or analogy you choose - that represents an increase in specified complexity. The way you've stacked the deck, that's impossible. I'm not inclined to pay much attention to the "argument from a stacked deck."

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-09-2004 05:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 4:41 AM Gup20 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 3:23 PM crashfrog has responded

Inactive Member

Message 37 of 47 (106871)
05-09-2004 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Gup20
05-09-2004 3:23 PM

It does, however, show the possibilty of one individual having the ability genetically to be the source of all variety of 'skin color' we see today.

Possibly. That person would be black, of course.

An increase of information would be for the fruit fly to grow a bee's stinger (or equivelent)

Ah, but see, you're already wrong.

Bee stingers develop from tissues that, in other insects, form ovipositors. (That's why it's only the female bees who sting.) So, in order for your fly to develop a stinger, it has to "lose" an ovipositor.

According to your definition, that's losing information and specificity.

or a grasshopper's jumping legs

That would require the loss of the regular legs, which would be a loss of specificity, right?

or a the ability to weave a web as a spider does.

Losing the ovipositor again, I suspect. Again a loss in specificity for the fly.

The evolutionist says 'see here is a transitional fossil'. The creationist, however, says 'I do not see any transition - I see a discreet fossil'.

Let me give a counter-example. I'm walking from my house to the store, and midway, a picture is taken.

The evolutionist says "here is Crash in transition to the store."

The creationist says "I don't see a transition; I see Crash in a discreet point in space. Where's the transition to that point in space?"

All transitionals are discreet fossils. How could they be otherwise? All evolution predicts is that we will find discreet, individual species that possess primitive or simpler versions of structures found in other species.

I find creationist definitions of "information" highly suspect, especially in regards to duplication.

On my computer, if I duplicate a 5 mb file, the computer tells me that there's another 5 mb of information there. Claude Shannon, the developer of information theory, tells me that there's another 5mb of information there. Everybody tells me there's more information there... except for creationists.

Now, I don't know anything about information, but as far as I can tell, whatever kind of "information" you're talking about has absoluetly nothing to do with biology. That's just common sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 3:23 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 38 of 47 (106874)
05-09-2004 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Gup20
05-09-2004 7:06 PM

This does not show 'the same creature' transitioning..

Evolution doesn't predict the "same creature" transitioning into anything. Individuals don't evolve. Populations do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 7:06 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 45 of 47 (107237)
05-10-2004 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Gup20
05-10-2004 8:14 PM

6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
7. No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
8. No information can exist without a will.

If these are your axioms, then applying this to biology is a big excerise in circular reasoning:

"We assume that information denotes intelligence; DNA has information, therefore DNA is the product of intelligence."

The plasmids are designed (intended - or whatever you want to call it) to react in hard times for the bacteria, and adapt it to changing food sources and they did their designated function.

Then why didn't they all do it? If this adaptability is designed in, why isn't it universal? If adaptabilty is by design then why do so many organisms fail to adapt?

The answer, of course, is that adaptation is not a design feature of organisms, but a consequence of selection on populations. Individuals don't adapt. Populations do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Gup20, posted 05-10-2004 8:14 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by JonF, posted 05-10-2004 9:15 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019